Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:06:06.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transatlantic Regulatory Interdependence, Law and Governance: The Evolving Roles of the EU and US Legislatures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2015

Davor JANČIĆ
Davor JANČIĆ*
Affiliation:
TMC Asser Institute
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyses the roles of the European Parliament and the US Congress in addressing regulatory interdependencies arising in the EU–US strategic partnership. It examines their international actorness as a potential remedy for the problems of democratic participation, executive dominance, and opaqueness in the shaping of transatlantic relations. It shows that legislatures significantly contribute to regulatory discrepancies and trade disputes and that the adverse consequences thereof justify more intensive ex ante cooperation between them. The analysis conducts two groups of case studies to demonstrate how the EP and Congress influence law and policy in areas of transatlantic regulatory and foreign policy divergence. The first group of case studies analyses parliamentary involvement in the making of international agreements (TTIP and ACTA). The second group of case studies inspects legislative action with extraterritorial effects (US Helms–Burton and Sarbanes–Oxley Acts). The article argues that the EP and Congress have so far frequently acted against the spirit of the strategic partnership in ways that are injurious to the interests of the other side, and discusses whether an interparliamentary early warning mechanism could reduce legislative and political frictions and increase the coherence of transatlantic lawmaking.

Keywords

Transatlantic relationsregulatory cooperationTTIPACTASarbanes–OxleyHelms–BurtonTransatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 17 , December 2015 , pp. 334 - 359
Copyright
© Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Hanhimäki, JM et al, Transatlantic Relations Since 1945: An Introduction (Routledge, 2012)Google Scholar; Sola, NF and Smith, M (eds), Perceptions and Policy in Transatlantic Relations: Prospective Visions from the US and Europe (Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar.

2 Cassese, A, Parliamentary Control Over Foreign Policy: Legal Essays (Sijthoff and Noordhoff, 1980)Google Scholar.

3 Jančić, D, ‘Transnational Parliamentarism and Global Governance: The New Practice of Democracy’ in E Fahey (ed), The Actors of Postnational Rulemaking: Contemporary Challenges of European and International Law (Routledge, 2015)Google Scholar.

4 Slaughter, A-M, ‘Disaggregated Sovereignty: Towards the Public Accountability of Global Government Networks’ (2004) 39 (2) Government and Opposition 159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 161.

5 Walker, N, ‘Postnational Constitutionalism and Postnational Public Law: A Tale of Two Neologisms’ (2012) 3 (1) Transnational Legal Theory 61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 80.

6 Jančić, D, ‘Globalizing Representative Democracy: The Emergence of Multilayered International Parliamentarism’ (2015) 38 (2) Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 197 Google Scholar.

7 Malamud, A and Stavridis, S, ‘Parliaments and Parliamentarians as International Actors’ in B Reinalda (ed), The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors (Ashgate, 2011)Google Scholar.

8 See Dubois, D, ‘The Attacks of 11 September: EU–US Cooperation Against Terrorism in the Field of Justice and Home Affairs’ (2002) 7 (3) European Foreign Affairs Review 317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jančić, D, ‘The Transatlantic Connection: Democratizing Euro-American Relations through Parliamentary Liaison’ in S Stavridis and D Irrera (eds), The European Parliament and Its International Relations (Routledge, 2015)Google Scholar.

9 Slaughter, A-M, A New World Order (Princeton University Press, 2004), p 108 Google Scholar.

10 Costa, O et al (eds), Parliamentary Dimensions of Regionalization and Globalization: The Role of Interparliamentary Institutions (Palgrave, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 S Stavridis and D Jančić (eds), Special Issue ‘Parliamentary Diplomacy Uncovered: European and Global Perspectives’ (2015) 10 (3&4) Hague Journal of Diplomacy, forthcoming.

12 See text accompanying notes 20–21 below.

13 See text accompanying note 94 below.

14 M Gianniou, ‘The European Parliament and the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict’ in S Stavridis and D Irrera, see note 8 above.

15 L Feliu and F Serra, ‘The European Union as a “Normative Power” and the Normative Voice of the European Parliament’ in S Stavridis and D Irrera, see note 8 above.

16 Slaughter, A-M and Burke-White, W, ‘The Future of International Law is Domestic (or, the European Way of Law)’ (2006) 47 (2) Harvard Journal of International Law 327 Google Scholar, p 334.

17 Kraft-Kasack, C, ‘Transnational Parliamentary Assemblies: A Remedy for the Democratic Deficit of International Governance?’ (2008) 31 (3) West European Politics 534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Cutler, R, ‘International Parliamentary Institutions as Organizations’ (2013) 4 (1) Journal of International Organizations Studies 104 Google Scholar, p 104.

19 Šabič, Z, ‘Building Democratic and Responsible Global Governance: The Role of International Parliamentary Institutions’ (2008) 61 (2) Parliamentary Affairs 255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 258.

20 Curtin, D, ‘Official Secrets and the Negotiation of International Agreements: Is the EU Executive Unbound?’ (2013) 50 (2) Common Market Law Review 423 Google Scholar.

21 Curtin, D, ‘Overseeing Secrets in the EU: A Democratic Perspective’ (2014) 52 (3) Journal of Common Market Studies 684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Putnam, RD, ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games’ (1988) 42 (3) International Organization 434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 See Keane, J, Global Civil Society? (Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Bignami, F and Charnovitz, S, ‘Transatlantic Civil Society Dialogues’ in M Pollack and G Shaffer (eds), Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy (Rowman and Littlefield, 2001), p 279 Google Scholar.

25 See Schütze, R, Foreign Affairs and the EU Constitution: Selected Essays (Cambridge University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch 11.

26 Howse, R, ‘Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation and the Problem of Democracy’ in GA Bermann et al (eds), Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Legal Problems and Political Prospects (Oxford University Press, 2000), p 480 Google Scholar.

27 Archick, K and Morelli, V, The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament: Evolving Transatlantic Legislative Cooperation (Congressional Research Service, 2013) CRS Report R41552 Google Scholar.

28 See its structure and operation in Jančić, D, ‘The European Parliament and EU–US Relations: Revamping Institutional Cooperation’ in E Fahey and D Curtin (eds), A Transatlantic Community of Law: Legal Perspectives on the Relationship between the EU and US Legal Orders (Cambridge University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.

29 Art 218(6) TFEU.

30 Bickerton, CJ, ‘Functionality in EU Foreign Policy: Towards a New Research Agenda?’ (2010) 32 (2) Journal of European Integration 220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Servent, AR, ‘The Role of the European Parliament in International Negotiations after Lisbon’ (2014) 21(4) Journal of European Public Policy 568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Art 2 TEU in conjunction with Arts 3(1) and 21 TEU.

32 Jančić, D, ‘World Diplomacy of the European Parliament’ (2015) 10 (3&4) Hague Journal of Diplomacy Google Scholar, forthcoming.

33 See S Stavridis and D Irrera, note 8 above.

34 Benedetto, G, ‘The European Parliament’ in JU Wunderlich and DJ Bailey (eds), The European Union and Global Governance: A Handbook (Routledge, 2011), p 87 Google Scholar.

35 Cofelice, A and Stavridis, S, ‘The European Parliament as an International Parliamentary Institution (IPI)’ (2014) 19 (2) European Foreign Affairs Review 145 Google Scholar, p 162.

36 Thym, D, ‘Parliamentary Involvement in European International Relations’ in M Cremona and BD Witte (eds), EU Foreign Relations Law: Constitutional Fundamentals (Hart, 2008), p 226 Google Scholar.

37 Eckes, C, ‘How the European Parliament’s Participation in International Relations Affects the Deep Tissue of the EU’s Power Structures’ (2015) 12 (4) International Journal of Constitutional Law 904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 906.

38 Monar, J, ‘Guest Editorial: Rejection of the EU-US SWIFT Interim Agreement by the European Parliament: A Historic Vote and Its Implications’ (2010) 15 (2) European Foreign Affairs Review 143 Google Scholar.

39 Fahey, E, ‘Law and Governance as Checks and Balances in Transatlantic Security: Rights, Redress and Remedies in EU-US Passenger Name Records and the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program’ (2013) 32 (1) Yearbook of European Law 368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 378.

40 Arts 4 and 12 thereof.

41 See background in PM Connorton, ‘Tracking Terrorist Financing through SWIFT: When US Subpoenas and Foreign Privacy Law Collide’ (2007) 76 (1) Fordham Law Review 283.

42 Suda, Y, ‘Transatlantic Politics of Data Transfer: Extraterritoriality, Counter-Extraterritoriality and Counter-Terrorism’ (2013) 51 (4) Journal of Common Market Studies 772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 780.

43 Art 15 of the 2012 PNR Agreement.

44 See Murphy, CC, EU Counter-Terrorism Law: Pre-Emption and the Rule of Law (Hart, 2012)Google Scholar, ch 6.

45 Art II, Section 2, Clause 2 thereof.

46 Art I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution.

47 Bradley, CA, International Law in the US Legal System (Oxford University Press, 2015)Google Scholar, ch 3.

48 Ibid, p 76.

49 Hathaway, OA, ‘Treaties' End: The Past, Present, and Future of International Lawmaking in the United States’ (2008) 117 (7) Yale Law Journal 1236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 1308.

50 Griffith, ES, Congress and Its Contemporary Role (University of London Press, 1967), p 167 Google Scholar.

51 Hinckley, B, Less than Meets the Eye: Foreign Policy Making and the Myth of the Assertive Congress (University of Chicago Press, 1994), p 7 Google Scholar.

52 ES Griffith, see note 50 above, pp 178–179.

53 Ibid, p 179.

54 See to this effect Sundquist, JL, The Decline and Resurgence of Congress (Brookings Institution, 1981)Google Scholar.

55 Zoellick, R, ‘Congress and the Making of US Foreign Policy’ (1999) 41 (4) Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 34.

56 Hamilton, LH and Tama, J, A Creative Tension: The Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), pp 72–73 Google Scholar.

57 CA Bradley, see note 47 above, p 80. See also text accompanying note 99 below.

58 Crook, JR, ‘War Powers Resolution – A Dim and Fading Legacy’ (2012) 45 (1/2) Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 157 Google Scholar.

59 50 US Code §1541–1548.

60 McCormick, J, American Foreign Policy and Process (Cengage Learning, 2014), p 306 Google Scholar.

61 Lindsay, JM, ‘Backseat Driving: The Role of Congress in American Diplomacy’ (2013) World Politics Review Google Scholar, 19 November.

62 Lindsay, JM, Congress and the Politics of US Foreign Policy (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), pp 126 Google Scholar, 137.

63 See Petersmann, E-U and Pollack, MA (eds), Transatlantic Economic Disputes: The EU, the US, and the WTO (Oxford University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krenzler, HG and Wiegand, G, ‘EU–US Relations: More than Trade Disputes?’ (1999) 4(2) European Foreign Affairs Review 153 Google Scholar, p 154.

64 Pollack, MA and Shaffer, GC, When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods (Oxford University Press, 2009), p 279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Alemanno, A, ‘How to Get out of the Transatlantic Regulatory Deadlock over Genetically Modified Organisms?’ in D Vogel and JFM Swinnen (eds), Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: The Shifting Roles of the EU, the US and California (Edward Elgar, 2011), p 200 Google Scholar.

66 Regulation (EC) No 258/97 [1997] OJ L43/1.

67 COM(2015) 176.

68 Lloyd, NC, ‘Beef Hormones Foster Animosity and Not Growth: An Analysis of the World Trade Organization Solving the United States’ and European Communities’ Beef Hormone Dispute’ (2006) 25 (2) Penn State International Law Review 557 Google Scholar.

69 Johnson, R, The U.S.-EU Beef Hormone Dispute (Congressional Research Service, 2015) CRS Report R4044 Google Scholar.

70 Directive 2003/74/EC [2003] OJ L262/17.

71 Trade and Development Act of 2000, PL 106-200 [2000] section 407.

72 R Johnson, see note 69 above, p 23.

73 See http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/asset_upload_file254_15654.pdf [last accessed 23 July 2015].

74 Clark, HR, ‘The WTO Banana Dispute Settlement and Its Implications for Trade Relations between the United States and the European Union’ (2002) 35 (2) Cornell International Law Journal 291 Google Scholar.

75 Johnson, R, U.S.-EU Poultry Dispute on the Use of Pathogen Reduction Treatments (PRTs) (Congressional Research Service, 2015) CRS Report R40199 Google Scholar.

76 KW Abbott, ‘US–EU Disputes over Technical Barriers to Trade and the “Hushkits” Dispute’ in E-U Petersmann and MA Pollack, see note 63 above.

77 Directive 2008/101/EC [2009] OJ L8/3.

78 European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011, PL 112-200 [2012]. See also D Jančić, note 8 above, p 187.

79 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 [2006] OJ L396/1 as amended.

80 ACM Meuwese, ‘EU–US Horizontal Regulatory Cooperation: Mutual Recognition of Impact Assessment?’ in D Vogel and JFM Swinnen, see note 65 above, p 262.

81 Scott, J, ‘From Brussels with Love: The Transatlantic Travels of European Law and the Chemistry of Regulatory Attraction’ (2009) 57 (4) American Journal of Comparative Law 897 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See, however, the argument that the EU’s economic power does not easily translate into political power in Young, AR and Peterson, J, Parochial Global Europe: 21 st Century Trade Politics (Oxford University Press, 2014), p 183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 MR Schwarzman and MP Wilson, ‘Reshaping Chemicals Policy on Two Sides of the Atlantic: The Promise of Improved Sustainability through International Collaboration’ in D Vogel and JFM Swinnen, see note 65 above, pp 116, 119.

83 See CG Hioureas and BE Cain, ‘Transatlantic Environmental Regulation Regulation-Making: Strengthening Cooperation between California and the EU’ in D Vogel and JFM Swinnen, see note 65 above, p 26.

84 DL Aaron, ‘Strengthening the Sinews of Partnership: Resolving and Avoiding Transatlantic Economic Conflicts’ in E-U Petersmann and MA Pollack, see note 63 above, p 556.

85 Williams, SL, ‘Trade Relations between the US and the EU’ in T Ilgen (ed), Hard Power, Soft Power and the Future of Transatlantic Relations (Ashgate, 2006), pp 99 Google Scholar, 106.

86 H Paemen, ‘Practical Recommendations for Policy Reforms in Order to Prevent and Settle US–EU Trade and Economic Disputes’ in E-U Petersmann and MA Pollack, see note 63 above, p 575.

87 Cremona, M, ‘Guest Editorial: Negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)’ (2015) 52 (2) Common Market Law Review 351 Google Scholar. See also Morin, JF et al (eds), The Politics of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations TTIP in a Globalized World (Ashgate, 2015)Google Scholar.

88 EP Resolution of 23 May 2013 on EU Trade and Investment Negotiations with the United States of America (2013/2558(RSP)) [2013] OJ C246 E/181, points 10–11, 18.

89 Ibid, points 12–13.

90 Ibid, point 17.

91 Ibid, point 19.

92 Ibid, points 23–24.

93 Ibid, point 25.

94 EP Resolution of 4 July 2013 on the US NSA Surveillance Programme, Surveillance Bodies in Various Member States and Their Impact on EU Citizens’ Privacy, (2013/2682(RSP)) [2013] OJ C319 E/273, recital K; EP Resolution of 12 March 2014 on the US NSA Surveillance Programme, Surveillance Bodies in Various Member States and Their Impact on EU Citizens’ Fundamental Rights and on Transatlantic Cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs (2013/2188(INI)) [2015] OJ C85/198, points 74, 116.

95 EP Resolution 2013/2188(INI) [2015] OJ C85/198, see note 94 above, point 133.

96 See C(2014) 9052 and http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230 [last accessed 23 July 2015].

97 See Weaver, M, ‘The Proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): ISDS Provisions, Reconciliation, and Future Trade Implications’ (2014) 29 (1) Emory International Law Review 225 Google Scholar; Quick, R, ‘Why TTIP Should Have an Investment Chapter Including ISDS’ (2015) 49 (2) Journal of World Trade 199 Google Scholar.

98 HR Resolution 76 of 15 February 2013 Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives that the United States and the European Union Should Pursue a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, points 1–3. See also HR Resolution 74 of 15 February 2013 Supporting the Goals and Objectives of Ireland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union, point 2.

99 Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (HR 1890/S 995), signed into law on 29 June 2015. See IF Fergusson, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy (Congressional Research Service, 2015) CRS Report RL33743.

100 DeBonis, M and Mufson, S, ‘Senate Democrats Vote to Block Obama on Trade’ Washington Post, 12 May 2015 Google Scholar: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-threaten-to-stall-trade-legislation-in-the-senate/2015/05/12/08f71d66-f8c0-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html [last accessed 23 July 2015].

101 See http://waysandmeans.house.gov/tag/tpa [last accessed 23 July 2015].

102 Bergkamp, L and Kogan, L, ‘Trade, the Precautionary Principle and Post-Modern Regulatory Process: Regulatory Convergence in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’ (2013) 4 European Journal of Risk Regulation 493, p 494 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103 EP Briefing Paper ‘The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): The US Congress’s Positions’, 9 September 2014, pp 7–8. See also Akhtar, SI and Jones, VC, Proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP): In Brief (Congressional Research Service, 2014) CRS Report R43158 Google Scholar.

104 See https://transatlantic-trade-investment-partnership-caucus-neal.house.gov [last accessed 23 July 2015].

105 EP Resolution of 8 July 2015 on Containing the European Parliament’s Recommendations to the European Commission on the Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (2014/2228(INI)).

106 TLD, 76th Meeting, Riga, 27–28 June 2015, p 2.

107 Eliasson, LJ, ‘Problems, Progress and Prognosis in Trade and Investment Negotiations: The Transatlantic Free Trade and Investment Partnership’ (2014) 12 (2) Journal of Transatlantic Studies 119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 129.

108 Levine, DS, ‘Transparency Soup: The ACTA Negotiating Process and “Black Box” Lawmaking’ (2011) 26 (3) American University International Law Review 811 Google Scholar.

109 See Kaminski, ME, ‘An Overview and the Evolution of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’ (2011) 21 (3) Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology 385 Google Scholar.

110 See essays in Roffe, P and Seuba, X (eds), The ACTA and the Plurilateral Enforcement Agenda: Genesis and Aftermath (Cambridge University Press, 2015)Google Scholar.

111 Silva, AJC, ‘Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights by Diminishing Privacy: How the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Jeopardizes the Right to Privacy’ (2011) 26 (3) American University International Law Review 601 Google Scholar.

112 EP Declaration of 8 March 2010 on the Lack of a Transparent Process for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and Potentially Objectionable Content, point 2.

113 Quinn, DM, ‘A Critical Look at the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’ (2011) 17 (4) Richmond Journal of Law and Technology 1 Google Scholar, p 23.

114 Opinion of 4 June 2012, point 8, in EP Recommendation of 22 June 2012 on the Draft Council Decision on the Conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America (2011/0167(NLE)).

115 EP Legislative Resolution of 4 July 2012 [2013] OJ C349 E/552.

116 SIT Veld, ‘Transatlantic Relations and Security – Reflections from a Politician, Practitioner and Litigator’ in E Fahey and D Curtin, see note 28 above.

117 Sophie in ‘t Veld v European Commission, T-301/10, ECLI:EU:T:2013:135.

118 D Curtin, see note 20 above, p 453.

119 Port, KL, ‘The Case against the ACTA’ (2012) 33 (3) Cardozo Law Review 1131 Google Scholar, p 1138.

120 Blakeney, M, ‘Covert International Intellectual Property Legislation: The Ignoble Origins of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’ (2013) 21 (1) Michigan State International Law Review 87 Google Scholar.

121 Katz, E and Hinze, G, ‘The Impact of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement on the Knowledge Economy: The Accountability of the Office of the US Trade Representative for the Creation of IP Enforcement Norms through Executive Trade Agreements’ (2009) 35 Yale Journal of International Law Online 24 Google Scholar, p 30.

122 Flynn, S, ‘ACTA’s Constitutional Problem: The Treaty is Not A Treaty’ (2011) 26 (3) American University International Law Review 903 Google Scholar, p 926.

123 Kaminski, ME, ‘The US Trade Representative’s Democracy Problem: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as a Juncture for International Lawmaking in the United States’ (2012) 35 (3) Suffolk Transnational Law Review 519 Google Scholar, p 521.

124 SM Flynn ‘ACTA’s Constitutional Problem in the United States’ in P Roffe and X Seuba (eds), see note 110 above, pp 161–162.

125 Letter of 12 October 2011: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=f20e3fd3-f2f1-4fc2-a387-570a575700d6&download=1 [last accessed 23 July 2015].

126 Letter of 5 January 2012: http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Wyden-01052012.pdf [last accessed 23 July 2015].

127 Keefe, MR, ‘The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the “Zone of Twilight”’ (2012) 35 (3) Suffolk Transnational Law Review 605, pp 607–609 Google Scholar.

128 Letter of 7 December 2011: http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kirk-12072011.pdf [last accessed 23 July 2015].

129 Letter of 6 March 2012: http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/84365507-State-Department-Response-to-Wyden-on-ACTA.pdf [last accessed 23 July 2015].

130 15 US Code §8113(a).

131 Letter of 25 July 2012: http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/wyden-07252012.pdf [last accessed 23 July 2015].

132 Amendments SA 1868 and SA 1869, 112th Congress (2011–2012).

133 Geist, M, ‘The Trouble with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)’ (2010) 30 (2) SAIS Review of International Affairs 137 Google Scholar, pp 138, 144.

134 Scott, J, ‘Extraterritoriality and Territorial Extension in EU Law’ (2014) 62 (1) American Journal of Comparative Law 87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott, J, ‘The New EU “Extraterritoriality”’ (2014) 51 (5) Common Market Law Review 1343 Google Scholar.

135 See Colangelo, AJ, ‘What is Extraterritorial Jurisdiction?’ (2014) 99 (6) Cornell Law Review 1303 Google Scholar; Gibney, MP, ‘The Extraterritorial Application of US Law: The Perversion of Democratic Governance, the Reversal of Institutional Roles, and the Imperative of Establishing Normative Principles’ (1996) 19 (2) Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 297 Google Scholar.

136 EP Resolution of 1 June 2006 on Improving EU-US Relations in the Framework of a Transatlantic Partnership Agreement (2005/2056(INI)) [2006] OJ C298 E/226, point 50.

137 PL 104-114 [1996], initiated by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Representative Dan Burton (R-IN).

138 See further in Lucio, SE II, ‘Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996: An Initial Analysis’ (1996) 27(2) University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 325 Google Scholar.

139 Section 302 thereof. See a view defending this Act in Clagett, BM, ‘Title III of the Helms-Burton Act is Consistent with International Law’ (1996) 90 (3) American Journal of International Law 434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

140 Lowe, VA, ‘US Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The Helms-Burton and D’Amato Acts’ (1997) 46(2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 379.

141 Gerke, K, ‘The Transatlantic Rift over Cuba. The Damage is Done’ (1997) 32 (2) The International Spectator 27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 34.

142 Wilner, GM, ‘International Reaction to the Cuban Democracy Act’ (1993) 8 (2) Florida Journal of International Law 401 Google Scholar, p 405.

143 Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 [1996] OJ L309/1.

144 Huber, J, ‘The Helms-Burton Blocking Statute of the European Union’ (1996) 20 (3) Fordham International Law Journal 699 Google Scholar, p 710.

145 Lowe, VA, ‘Helms-Burton and EC Regulation 2271/96’ (1997) 56 (2) Cambridge Law Journal 248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 250.

146 PL 104-172 [1996]. See the EU’s reaction to the Helms–Burton and D’Amato Acts in Cremona, M, ‘The European Union as an International Actor: The Issues of Flexibility and Linkage’ (1998) 3 (1) European Foreign Affairs Review 90 Google Scholar.

147 WTO Dispute DS38: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds38_e.htm [last accessed 4 November 2013].

148 Smis, S and Borght, KVD, ‘The EU-US Compromise on the Helms-Burton and D’Amato Acts’ (1999) 93 (1) American Journal of International Law 227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 229.

149 EP Resolution of 15 May 1997 on the Suspension of the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure as Regards the Helms-Burton Act [1997] OJ C167/150.

150 EP Resolution of 18 September 1997 on the Negotiations Between the Commission and the US Administration on the Helms-Burton Act [1997] OJ C304/116.

151 EP Resolution of 15 May 2002 on the Commission Communication to the Council on Reinforcing the Transatlantic Relationship: Focusing on Strategy and Delivering Results [2003] OJ C180 E/392, point 61.

152 VA Lowe, see note 140 above, p 383.

153 K Gerke, see note 141 above, p 40.

154 Solis, AM, ‘The Long Arm of U.S. Law: The Helms-Burton Act’ (1997) 19 (3) Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal 709 Google Scholar, p 729.

155 Pullen, M, ‘The Helms–Burton Act: Compliance with International Law and the EU’s Proposed Counter-Measures’ (1996) 2 (5) International Trade Law and Regulation 159 Google Scholar, p 166.

156 EP Resolution of 10 March 2011 on the EU’s Approach Towards Iran (2010/2050(INI)) [2012] OJ C199 E/163, point 53.

157 EP Resolution of 11 June 2015 on the Strategic Military Situation in the Black Sea Basin Following the Illegal Annexation of Crimea by Russia (2015/2036(INI)), point 27.

158 PL 107-204 [2002]. Initiated by Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G Oxley (R-OH).

159 See more in Kim, B, ‘Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Recent Developments’ (2003) 40 (1) Harvard Journal on Legislation 235 Google Scholar; Aronson, NH, ‘Preventing Future Enrons: Implementing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002’ (2002) 8 (1) Stanford Journal of Law, Business and Finance 127 Google Scholar.

160 Ahearn, RJ, Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Background and Analysis (Congressional Research Service, 2009) CRS Report RL34717, p 16 Google Scholar.

161 Posner, E, ‘Making Rules for Global Finance: Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation at the Turn of the Millennium’ (2009) 63 (4) International Organization 673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

162 Directive 2002/87/EC [2003] OJ L35/1.

163 E Posner, see note 161 above, p 684.

164 Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 [2002] OJ L243/1.

165 Directive 2004/39/EC [2004] OJ L145/1.

166 Hellwig, HJ, ‘The Transatlantic Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue’ in KJ Hopt et al (eds), Corporate Governance in Context: Corporations, States, and Markets in Europe, Japan, and the US (Oxford University Press, 2005), p 366 Google Scholar.

167 E Posner, see note 161 above, p 687.

168 See http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/olia.htm [last accessed 31 October 2013].

169 Framework Agreement on Relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission [2010] OJ L304/47, points 12–13.

170 Ibid, point 15.

171 See Corbett, R et al, The European Parliament (John Harper Publishing, 2007), p 299 Google Scholar; Moloney, N, ‘The Lamfalussy Legislative Model: A New Era for the EC Securities and Investment Services Regime’ (2003) 52 (2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

172 HJ Hellwig, see note 166 above, p 374.

173 Joint Statements of 63rd–66th TLD Meetings.

174 Quaglia, L, ‘The Politics of “Third Country Equivalence” in Post-Crisis Financial Services Regulation in the European Union’ (2015) 38 (1) West European Politics 167, p 180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

175 Pagliari, S, ‘A Wall Around Europe? The European Regulatory Response to the Global Financial Crisis and the Turn in Transatlantic Relations’ (2013) 35 (4) Journal of European Integration 391, p 405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

176 W Meng, ‘“Early Warning System” for Dispute Prevention in the Transatlantic Partnership: Experiences and Prospects’ in E-U Petersmann and MA Pollack, see note 63 above.

177 Joint Statement on ‘Early Warning’ Mechanism, 21 June 1999: http://useu.usmission.gov/bonn-summit-99.html [last accessed 23 July 2015].

178 Ibid, point g.

179 See the view against establishing a body with legislative powers in transatlantic governance in WH Roth, ‘Building the “Transatlantic Economic Partnership”: Are New General Institutions Needed?’ in Bermann et al, see note 26 above.

180 Common Understanding on Regulatory Principles and Best Practices: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/july/tradoc_148030.pdf [last accessed 24 September 2015].

181 T Takács, ‘Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation in Trade: Objectives, Challenges and Instruments for Economic Governance’ in E Fahey and D Curtin, see note 28 above, p 182.

182 A Alemanno, see note 65 above, p 211.

183 McGuire, S and Smith, M, The European Union and the United States Competition and Convergence in the Global Arena (Palgrave, 2008), pp 57, 280 Google Scholar.

184 Pollack, M, ‘The New Transatlantic Agenda at Ten: Reflections on an Experiment in International Governance’ (2005) 43 (5) Journal of Common Market Studies 899, p 915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

185 MA Pollack, ‘Managing System Friction: Regulatory Conflicts in Transatlantic Relations and the WTO’ in E-U Petersmann and MA Pollack, see note 63 above, p 600; Herdegen, M, ‘Legal Challenges for Transatlantic Economic Integration’ (2008) 45 (6) Common Market Law Review 1581 Google Scholar, pp 1587, 1595–1596.

186 State Watch, ‘Civil Liberties MEPs Make Case for Data Protection during Washington Visit’, 24 March 2015: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/mar/eu-usa-dp-meps-prel.pdf [last accessed 23 July 2015].

187 Cameron, F, ‘EU-US Economic Relations and Global Governance’ in K Möttölä (ed), Transatlantic Relations and Global Governance (Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2006), p 66 Google Scholar.

188 MA Pollack, see note 185 above, p 602.

189 EP Resolution of 26 March 2009 on the State of Transatlantic Relations in the Aftermath of the US Elections (2008/2199(INI)) [2010] OJ C117 E/198, point 52.

190 E-U Petersmann, ‘Preventing and Settling Transatlantic Economic Disputes: Legal and Policy Recommendations from a Citizen Perspective’ in E-U Petersmann and MA Pollack, see note 63 above, p 587.

191 Jr, DJ Bennet, ‘Congress in Foreign Policy: Who Needs It?’ (1978) 57 (1) Foreign Affairs 40 Google Scholar, p 45.

192 Elles, J, ‘The Foreign Policy Role of the European Parliament’ (1990) 13 (4) The Washington Quarterly 69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 72.

193 D Jančić, see note 28 above, p 53.

194 EP Resolution of 13 June 2013 on the Role of the EU in Promoting a Broader Transatlantic Partnership (2012/2287(INI)) [2013] OJ C253 E/243, point 7.

195 Burghardt, G, ‘The EU’s Transatlantic Relationship’ in A Dashwood and M Maresceau (eds), Law and Practice of EU External Relations: Salient Features of a Changing Landscape (Cambridge University Press, 2008), p 397 Google Scholar.

196 R Zoellick, see note 55 above, pp 38–39.

197 A-M Slaughter, see note 9 above, p 128.

198 A Alemanno, see note 65 above, pp 217–219.

199 Speech by Karel de Gucht, ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)–Solving the Regulatory Puzzle’, 10 October 2013.

200 Hamilton, D, ‘Transatlantic Challenges: Ukraine, TTIP and the Struggle to Be Strategic’ (2014) 52(s1) Journal of Common Market Studies 25, p 34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

201 Art 14, Initial Provisions for the TTIP Chapter on Regulatory Cooperation: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/153403.htm [last accessed 23 July 2015].

202 Ibid, Art 5.

203 Ibid, Art 9(7).

204 See also Study, EP, ‘The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Parliamentary Dimension of Regulatory Cooperation’, April 2014, p 55 Google Scholar.

205 TLD, 75th Meeting, Washington DC, 25–26 March 2014, p 2.

206 TLD, 76th Meeting, Riga, 27–28 June 2015, p 1.

207 Ahearn, RJ and Morelli, V, Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Possible Role for Congress (Congressional Research Service, 2010) CRS Report RL34735, p 17 Google Scholar.

208 See note 105 above, point 2(e)(vii) thereof.

209 See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/us/en/home/what_we_do.html [last accessed 23 July 2015].

210 Jančić, D, ‘Towards a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): National Parliaments and EU-US Relations’ Paper presented at the ACCESS Europe & Academy of Finland Workshop on Legislative-Executive Relations in Foreign and Security Policy, VU Amsterdam, 21–22 May 2015 Google Scholar.

211 See eg EP Resolution of 17 May 2001 on the State of the Transatlantic Dialogue [2002] OJ C34 E/359, point 9.

212 L Kuhnhardt, ‘Globalization, Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation, and Democratic Values’ in Bermann et al, see note 26 above, p 490.

213 Fahey, E, ‘On the Use of Law in Transatlantic Relations: Legal Dialogues between the EU and US’ (2014) 20 (3) European Law Journal 368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 371.

214 HJ Hellwig, see note 166 above, p 365.

215 MA Pollack, see note 184 above, p 904.

216 E Posner, see note 161 above, p 672.

217 HJ Hellwig, see note 166 above, p 368.

218 Keohane, RO, ‘Ironies of Sovereignty: The European Union and the United States’ (2002) 40 (4) Journal of Common Market Studies 743 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

219 Jančić, D, ‘The Game of Cards: National Parliaments in the EU and the Future of the Early Warning Mechanism and the Political Dialogue’ (2015) 52 (4) Common Market Law Review 939 Google Scholar.